HOME DEPARTMENT

Asylum Accommodation Centres

Beverley Hughes: Following a careful and detailed assessment of HMS Daedalus in Gosport as a potential accommodation centre for asylum seekers, we have concluded that the difficulties associated with the conversion of historic buildings and the creation of a suitable access point into the site mean that we will no longer be pursuing this site for the purposes of the trial. I can confirm that we will not be proceeding with a planning notification for this site.
	It remains our intention to include within the trial of accommodation centres at least one centre which is smaller than the 750 bed model, and is located in, or near, an urban area. We are still in discussions with the Refugee Council about the core and cluster model proposed by them. We will not be putting details of potential sites into the public domain unless and until they appear to be a good prospect for the siting of an accommodation centre.

DEFENCE

Reserve Forces

Ivor Caplin: We are making an important administrative change to the recruitment and re-engagement procedures for the volunteer reserve forces. From 1 April this year, new recruits to the volunteer reserve forces and applicants for re-engagement will be required to agree to their unit contacting their employer about their membership. The purpose of contacting employers is to ensure that they are aware of those employees who are members of the volunteer reserve forces and also to provide information about training and call-out liabilities.
	As a safeguard, reservists will have a right to submit cases to their commanding officers if they believe that they have particular reasons for not having their membership of the volunteer reserve forces disclosed. Cases will be considered on their merits.
	This change to our administrative procedures will enable employers to be in a better position to plan for the absence of employees who are reservists and also to be better informed about their rights and obligations. It builds on our policy of recognising that the effectiveness of the reserves ultimately depends on a three-way relationship between the Ministry of Defence, the reservists themselves and their employers.

Colchester Garrison PFI

Ivor Caplin: I am very pleased to announce to the House that the Ministry of Defence has reached agreement with RMPA Services plc to redevelop and operate Colchester garrison. This PFI contract will provide effective services to the army for 35 years and is worth approximately £2 billion through the life of the project.
	This is an arrangement which is beneficial to both parties and we shall shortly see work on the new barracks starting on the ground. The result will be a fully serviced and modern garrison for a modern army with living and working accommodation that is amongst the best, demonstrating our commitment to providing our armed forces with facilities that are up to date and appropriate for the 21st century. I expect approximately 190 civil service posts to transfer to the contractor and these will be handled in accordance with existing legislation. We do not envisage any redundancies arising out of this transfer.

Armed Forces Pension Scheme

Ivor Caplin: Further to my answer to the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr Howarth), Official Report, 21 January 2004, column 1244W, the proposals set out in the Treasury and Inland Revenue document "Simplifying the taxation of pensions: the Government's proposals", published on 10 December 2003, would allow all such pension guarantee lump sum payments to continue to be paid free of income tax, subject to the proposed £1.4 million lifetime allowance.
	The original answer was incorrect following advice from officials across Government, and I unreservedly apologise for this inaccurate answer.
	The new armed forces pension scheme currently in Committee stage will in the event of the member's death, be able to pay both death-in-service lump sums of the type already paid under existing pension arrangements and the new pension guarantee lump sums applicable in cases of death in retirement, without any income tax charge. So, subject to the £1.4 million allowance, the rate will not be 35 per cent. but zero.
	I have today written to the hon. Member for Aldershot enclosing a copy of this statement.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

Energy White Paper Annual Report

Patricia Hewitt: The Energy White Paper first annual report will be published shortly after the Easter recess. This will allow the Government to report on a full year from the launch of the White Paper in February 2003, as we are legally required to do by the Sustainable Energy Act 2003, as well as to capture some key energy statistics for the relevant period. Given the importance of energy efficiency to delivery of the Energy White Paper objectives, the Government intend to publish the energy efficiency implementation plan at the same time as the Annual Report. The Government also envisage simultaneous publication of the fuel poverty strategy implementation plan and the CHP strategy.

HEALTH

Foundation Trusts

John Hutton: I have been informed by the chairman of the independent regulator of National Health Service foundation trusts that applications for the first wave of NHS foundation trust status will be considered in two groups. This reflects the complexity of a number of applicants and the rigorous approach to assessment that the regulator is adopting.
	Subject to assessment criteria being met, the first group will be considered for authorisation from 1 April 2004 and the second group of 12 from 1 July 2004.
	The first group of 12 are:
	Basildon & Thurrock General Hospitals NHS Trust
	Bradford Hospitals NHS Trust
	Countess of Chester Hospital NHS Trust
	Doncaster & Bassetlaw Hospitals NHS Trust
	Homerton University Hospital NHS Trust
	Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Trust
	North Tees & Hartlepool NHS Trust
	Peterborough Hospitals NHS Trust
	Rotherham General Hospitals NHS Trust
	Royal Devon & Exeter Health Care NHS Trust
	Stockport NHS Trust
	The Royal Marsden NHS Trust
	The second group are:
	Addenbrooke's NHS Trust
	Calderdale & Huddersfield NHS Trust
	City Hospitals Sunderland NHS Trust
	Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Trust
	Guy's & St Thomas' Hospital NHS Trust
	King's College Hospital NHS Trust
	Papworth Hospital NHS Trust
	Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust
	Southern Derbyshire Acute Hospital Services NHS Trust
	The Queen Victoria Hospital NHS Trust
	University College London Hospitals NHS Trust
	University Hospital Birmingham NHS Trust

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

Israel's Fence

Jack Straw: On 8 December 2003 the UN General Assembly in Resolution ES-10/14 requested the International Court of Justice to render urgently an advisory opinion on the legal consequences arising from the construction of the wall being built by Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. In response to the request, the International Court of Justice has invited UN Member States, Palestine and certain international organisations to contribute written and/or oral statements to the court if they wish to do so. On 30 January the UK submitted a national written statement to the International Court of Justice in The Hague.
	As I have repeatedly made clear, here and elsewhere, the UK considers the building by Israel of a fence, or wall, in the West Bank to be unlawful. The UK's written statement submitted to the court recalls that we voted in favour of UN General Assembly Resolution ES-10/13, adopted on 21 October 2003, which demands that Israel stop and reverse construction of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. I regret that Israel has not complied with the General Assembly's demand. We recognise Israel's legitimate security concerns. The latest, horrifying suicide bombing in Jerusalem on 29 January only too clearly shows the continuing threat faced by Israel from terrorists, but building the fence on occupied land only complicates efforts to make progress towards a comprehensive peace settlement.
	Despite our view on the illegalities of the fence, we argued against this question being referred to the International Court of Justice. This approach is one shared by all members of the European Union including all accession states. This is being communicated by the Irish Presidency to the court. The UK has also submitted a detailed written statement to the court arguing that the court ought to exercise its discretion to decline to give an opinion. Our arguments are about the use of the court's advisory jurisdiction. We believe that it is inappropriate to embroil the court in a heavily political bilateral dispute. We also believe the court should not be engaged where the consent of both parties has not been given. An opinion is not necessary to assist the General Assembly in reaching a view on the fence. Nor, in the absence of participation from one side, will the court have all the facts before it.
	Submissions to the International Court of Justice are confidential until the court decides to make them public. We expect the court will make the written statements submitted to it public at the start of the oral proceedings, due to begin on 23 February. At that stage, I will place a copy in the Library of the House.

TREASURY

Census 2001

Ruth Kelly: The 2001 Census National Report (part 2) for England and Wales is being published and laid before Parliament today by the Office for National Statistics. Copies are available in the Libraries of both Houses. The report is also available on the National Statistics website.
	This follows the publication of the National Report (part 1) in May 2003. These two documents are prepared under section 4(1) of the Census Act 1920.
	The printed National Report (part 2) contains tables on migration and on travel-to-work and workplace populations as well as new tables on members of the Armed Forces and on same-sex couples. The report is accompanied by a CD that includes all tables contained in either part of the National Report at regional and local authority level. Copies are being provided free of charge to all local authorities.

WORK AND PENSIONS

Working and Saving

Andrew Smith: The proposals we are publishing today are the next part of the Government's strategy for private and occupational pensions as set out in the pensions Green Paper.
	Informed Choices for Working and Saving (Cm 6111) takes forward a central element of the pensions agenda and sets out our strategy for empowering individuals to make real and informed choices on working and saving for their retirement.
	The Government's strategy is based around three steps—activation, education and information. We are determined:
	to enable people to make the most of pension provision and encourage availability of the right pension products;
	to raise people's awareness of their options and improve financial education; and
	to ensure that everyone has high-quality, accurate and timely information.
	We in Government want to build on our partnership working with employers, individuals, the financial services industry, trade unions and the voluntary sector who all have a part to play taking this agenda forward.
	Our Informed Choice strategy is only one part of our wider pension reform programme. Alongside Informed Choice the forthcoming Pensions Bill will take forward measures that bolster security for scheme members while also making it easier, simpler and more flexible for employers and employees to contribute to pensions.

Benefit Fraud Inspection(Portsmouth City Council)

Chris Pond: On behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the benefit fraud inspectorate (BFI) inspection report on Portsmouth city council was published today and copies of the report have been placed in the Library.
	Following the housing Green Paper "Quality and Choice: A Decent Home for All", published in April 2000, the Department for Work and Pensions developed a performance framework for housing benefits. The performance standards for housing benefits' allow local authorities to make a comprehensive self-assessment of whether they deliver benefit effectively and securely. They are the standards that the Department for Work and Pensions expects local authorities to aspire to and achieve in time.
	The BFI inspected Portsmouth city council against the performance standards for housing benefits. The report finds that the council is not at standard for any of the seven functional areas of the standards.
	There were some significant strengths in strategic management, customer services, processing of claims, internal security and working with landlords. However, in the areas of counter-fraud and overpayments, the council has much to do to improve its performance.
	Although not at standard for customer services, the council delivers a comprehensive range of customer services throughout eight area housing offices, and the work in encouraging take-up of benefits through the access point initiative was particularly commendable. The council also produced comprehensive and well-documented procedures for selecting suitable landlords. New benefit claims were taking an average of 38 days to clear compared with the national target of 36 days.
	Portsmouth city council needed to improve its counter-fraud work by revising its prosecution policy, developing procedures for counter-fraud officers and improving its management of investigations.
	The council could not accurately report performance for benefit overpayments, and the areas of decisions, calculations and recovery of overpayments needed to be critically addressed.
	In 2002–03, Portsmouth City Council administered some £61 million in housing benefits, about 14.6 per cent. of its total gross revenue expenditure.
	The report makes recommendations to help the council address weaknesses and to further improve the administration of housing benefit and council tax benefit, as well as counter-fraud activities.
	My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is now considering the report and will be asking the council for its proposals in response to the BFI's findings and recommendations.